Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
CSPAN 18
FBC 17
MSNBCW 17
MSNBC 16
FOXNEWS 13
CSPAN2 11
CNN 6
CNNW 6
KCSM (PBS) 3
KQED (PBS) 3
KQEH (PBS) 3
KRCB (PBS) 3
WETA 3
WHUT (Howard University Television) 3
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 149
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 149 (some duplicates have been removed)
adults. >> i would argue that a more restrained foreign policy is the true conservative foreign policy. >> the average american is not thinking about and trying to wonder about where the republican party is. they're thinking about how to make their life work. >> your leader in the house right there, eric cantor, where is this debate headed? >> i think it's a good debate for the republican party to have. when you lose an election, you ought to be a little bit reflective and ought to think back and ought to begin to say, what do we need to do differently? we didn't do badly in the election, but the president won with less than he was elected in '08, lower popular vote, lower electoral vote. we held the house, we have 30 governors. the idea this is some existential crisis is overdone, i think, but we didn't win so what do we need differently. i like what we're hearing and like the direct line that governor jindal took because i think we have -- >> we can't be too -- >> yeah, we nearly were in the fiscal cliff and could have triggered a big tax increase. i don't want to be stupid but you a
that is a loss in trying to create a bipartisan foreign policy in washington and the reduction was probably one of the most important congressional initiatives that we have ever seen. the idea that you could take that kind of money from the defense budget that didn't make the military very happy and apply it to demilitarizing the strategic arsenal of the former soviet union was extremely important. we go from bush to clinton, clinton didn't want to deal with foreign policy like so many presidents they felt they were elected to do domestic things. clinton had no background in foreign policy, no interest in the foreign policy. people say they went to georgetown, the school really wasn't good enough as i am concerned. i hope i am not offending anyone in georgetown she put together a security team all of them were gone within a year or two for the most part when you look at christopher and the cia was a very peculiar appointment. he did something that needs to be corrected. he was in the foreign policy bureaucracy as i am concerned he brought to the right wing and abolishing the arms control and di
and its impact on neighboring countries. then, a look at foreign policy challenges facing the obama administration. after that, a discussion about the state of women's rights around the world. >> if you have some hotshot who just got his phd in computer science from stanford, she is getting offers from all over the world. to say you can stay in some limbo for six years, that is not really competitive. >> congress can do a lot. you do not have to be efficient on your iphone or blackberry to understand the application of policy and what makes it work and does not. >> it is very difficult to make investment decisions and expect any kind of return on investment when you have no way to predict the future. our difficulty right now is that there is no consistency or certainty in in our policy decisions. >> the government's role in technology and policy, from this years ces international consumer electronics show. monday night on the communicators on c-span2. >> at age 65, she was the oldest first lady when her husband became president. she never set foot in washington. her husband, benjami
the fears of progressives as obama conducts a foreign policy that looks like bush's. i am not pro-drone. i am pro-destroying al qaeda. i am pro-protecting america. i am pro-a better drone program and i am pro ending this war as soon as we can but i fear that's a long way away. as douglas macarthur said, only the dead have seen the end of war, and we may now be in a permanent war. okay. that does it for "the cycle." martin, it's yours. >> passionate patriotism from toure. thank you. it's monday, february 11th, and a pope has abdicated, the president prepares to face the nation, but republicans are still stuck on benghazi. >> the president's state of the union address. could be the president's last best chance to address a captive audience. >> do republicans have the leverage now? >> none of the things i ran on as part of the tea party have been fixed. >> i don't want to live with this sequester. >> how do we get growth with jobs? >> no confirmation without information. >> are you going to support him for defense secretary? >> i will see the rest of the answers to his questions but certainly
, immigration, the environment, everything basically, but his lead on foreign policy is a staggering 14 points. what makes republicans think this is a good thing to have a fight over? >> right. up until recently everybody said, look, politics stops at the water's edge, and that hasn't been the case for the last couple years with this republican party. but it turns out that it wasn't necessarily that both parties followed that axiom because they were being nice about it. it turns out that it's incredibly bad politics to challenge your sitting president overseas. and, you know, this benghazi thing has not worked out for the republican party at all. they tried effectively to make it the biggest issue of the presidential campaign in the last several weeks, and people just didn't buy into it. what they saw is a tragedy. something that was -- if it could have been prevented, it should have been prevented, but they weren't going to start pointing blame and ask for the resignations of hillary clinton and throw barack obama out of office. >> right. >> and the idea that you'd be able to stop future cia
saying you know foreign policy, here is another bit of evidence that it is run from the white house. now the president has the perfect right to overrule. >> yes. >> he is is the can kmnd-- commander in chief and some of the best decisions a man named elliott cone write a book on this, some of the best presidential decisions have been overruled. so within that perfect right he is, nonetheless the concentration of power in the white house across a whole range of spheres is i think a little troubling. and seconds's very hard to believe that there wasn't any politics in this domestic politics, i mean. now it could be arming the rebels was ineffective but if you have this broad sweep of people saying we should arm the rebels and the white house says no, it's hard to believe since it was so politically convenient not-- that it wasn't a mistake. and now the wrong rebels are in -- >> politics does have a role sometimes. >> the president did, in fact, overrule his advisors, including the vice president, including the secretary of defense gates, on going after osama bin laden. and elise ened to jo
? >> ultimately the key decision makers in american foreign policy are the same people. which is the president and its key advisors on the national security council. and the issue is not whether or not the advocates in the state department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even with thunited stasgovernment as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >> absolutely. thousands of syrians go ove
rice. there's a controversy. we have republicans who are in a weird position on foreign policy and national security precisely because the president has been so aggressive. in a lot of ways there's not a lot of daylight between what republicans do in the same position as democrats. unless we're bipartisan, there is a lot of people in particular, chuck hagel as defense secretary nominee, and there has been some talk by some in the gop leadership that they will filibuster his nomination. john mccain saying he won't. what is your read on all that many. >> i think it will be a very interesting move to filibuster. it will be a drastic move. wron if you guys saw, but carl livin said he will hold a vote on the nomination tomorrow, so they are moving ahead with it. my hunch is that they won't because i think deep down inside republican senators believe that a president does deserve to choose his advisors, and i think it sets a bad press debt because one day there will be a republican in the white house again. maybe not, i guess. the venom from republican senators towards chuck hagel is
foreign policy and military policy on the basis of drones. lou: let's take a look at the drawn strikes that accelerated markedly, dramatically under president obama from the bush years. freaky put that up to show how it is grown. 352 drone strikes in pakistan and yemen under president obama. 352, and in 63 in given since 2009. one strike under president bush. 289 strikes in pakistan verses 45 and the bush. last week, we only take such actions as a last resort to save lives. any actions will be legally grounded, the early anchored in intelligence. what does that sound like a rehearsed line? what the implications if he is confirmed? and i want to add one thing to this issue. a new website. a new website to me. coming out with this report that part of the problems that we are creating, the cia under david patraeus moving toward special operations instead of carrying out what has been traditionally its responsibility, intelligence gathering. where does all of this ploy? >> they always had two sides of the house. operations and intelligence analysis side. the strikes, the drone strikes at t
in terms of foreign policy from the bush doctrine, from the bush era policies, but in many ways has followed them and has been handed this entire security apparatus, this particular program began in 2004, about 400 strikes have happened so far. about 3,000 people have been killed, mostly pakistan, somali, yemen. but you have had this sort of deafening silence for the most part from progressives and liberals around this. you have had a few voices certainly on the hill and even on your network to raise questions about it, but by and large, the president has been given something of a pass. i think also the public has moved beyond this in some ways. there's a post-9/11 new normal in terms of how the public looks at the prosecution of this war on terror. they see it, it seems to me, as a vast war, an endless war in some ways that might be best prosecuted in this way rather than those large land wars we saw in afghanistan and iraq of this sort of pinpointed targeting of folks seem so far to have found some positive backing from americans. >> the cover of "time" magazine is rise of the dro
. a reporter for foreign policy said it looks like the iranian dumped some rudimentary flight controls and an ejection sheet into a shell molded into what they thought were stealthy angles. a defense analyst looks like it might make noise and vibrate if you put a quarter in it. president ahmadinejad said it carries a message of peace, friendship, and brotherhood. our military achievements, he said, do not pose a threat to anyone. seems like in this particular case, it doesn't pose a threat to anyone which leads us to our next story about military achievements that do indeed pose a threat. there is word tonight that the united states facing drastic defense cuts could be falling behind some of its potential enemies. national security correspondent injurjennifer griffin looks at t prospect. >> reporter: for the first time in two years, the pentagon said it can't afford to keep two aircraft carriers in the persian gulf. the u.s.s. truman would have left today from norfolk, virginia. defense secretary leon panetta blamed the cut back on is he quest ration saying if congress can't rewrite th
a serious discussion about foreign policy in defense during these nomination hearings. whether it's hagel or brennan or whatever. they're just taking cheap shots all over the place and they're not having a serious discussion. >> what -- >> in other words, if dick cheney wants to get in the ball game and have a really serious -- >> you raise this, i have to answer your question. what is the burr in lindsey graham's saddle? >> well -- >> why is he putting a hold on hagel? >> he's not going to put a hold on hagel. that's just -- he's just grabbing his ankles on the way out the door. hagel is going to be confirmed. it's a done deal. john mccain has blessed it. john mccain said he gave the committee enough -- said hagel gave the committee enough information i'm not going to hold him up on benghazi. i think lindsey graham is there to be the last annoying guy to make sure that hagel keeps whatever promises he made behind the scenes -- >> howard, does this -- >> to carl levin and -- >> the cisco kid may have handed 9 okay but poncho is still fighting the war. thank you, howard and joan. >>> miche
when he's had a stellar record on foreign policy. >> but you know these babbitts that sit in the audience for people like him. these bergers. you can see them from the rotary club, very polite. i can hear the audience, excellent point. well put, vice president. this second rate -- they all agree, they wouldn't have approved these people. wyoming doesn't deserve this guy. it's a beautiful state. >> i think that maybe dick cheney has a case of drone envy here. >> yeah. >> really? >> well, i mean -- >> go on, sir. >> okay. he's the guy who is used to being attacked by the aclu. >> i see. >> you see what i'm saying? actually president obama has got some weapons that dick cheney wouldn't mind having had, and the president -- >> this is getting way too -- pull back. >> and the president has been unafraid to use them. >> right. >> serious point -- >> i get -- >> the republicans spent a generation unhorsing democrats because democrats were, quote, weak on defense. >> they weren't willing to pull the trigger. >> they weren't willing to pull the trigger. barack obama, to the dismay
box right? >> such a key component of obama's foreign policy has been we're going to slip in across borders, we're going to do covert actions kill who we need to kill as we view that. it is extremely -- you know, these kind of things, the way these things operate the machinery behind it when you read this memo, i mean this is what you would call, you know, a barnburner scoop. this is actually amazing stuff to see this written down in black and white the way the government does this. >> bill: again i think liberals progressives, would be raising holy hell if george bush and dick cheney -- if this were their policy demanding at least to know what the guidelines are. i think we should be equally strong, i believe in making that demand. even if it's president obama and joe biden. their policy. because this is a big deal. and you know -- >> if you think guys likewide-do that? -- wyden will do that? >> bill: he wrote letters saying we want to see all of the memos on drone policy and we want to see what the guidelines are. what rules you are following. and i think the american people deser
is that they are two policies now. they were two managements of foreign policy. one low level, and a different one strategic going out of the white house, and many thinks the white house had at the time objectives not really informed at the security council on the one hand or the state department. lou: let me ask you just straight up, yes or no. were you disappointed or disgusted at the conduct of the president of the united states and the secretary of state? >> i think that by trying to put this on the video, this was a diversion from what was happening on the ground, and they tried not to inform the american public before the elections. i think that's the con consensuf most of us, those of us who know what the jihadists were trying to do. lou: thank you for being with us. more on the rising tensionings in -- tensions in the middle east and president obama's response with the a-team next. the northeast hit by another big storm. in fact, a record storm. the blizzard update is next. bush whacked or hacked, however you want to say it, the bush family photos and secret e-mails of the former first fam
on the president on foreign policy issues. >> eric: thank you, chris. those interviews are on the "fox news sunday" program that airs later on today here on the fox news chabannel at 2 p.m. and 6 . on the fox newschannel. jamie? >> jamie: you know what's coming up. the doctors are in for their sunday housecall. they'll tell us about a surprising new study that's raising concerns about the effects of a common supplement. it's been linked to heart disease. we'll tell you what it is. stay tuned. [ male announcer ] when it comes to the financial obstacles military families face, we understand. our financial advice is geared specifically to current and former military members and their families. [ laughs ] dad! dad! [ applause ] [ male announcer ] life brings obstacles. usaa brings retirement advice. call or visit us online. we're ready to help. learn more with our free usaa retirement guide. call 877-242-usaa.
of guns were americans who own them but the dollar, a debt and weak foreign policy. unemployment
, a debt and weak foreign policy.
being unsafe, not the number of guns were americans who own them but the dollar, a debt and weak foreign policy. unemploy
adviser who can murder you on foreign policy. mexico mississippi? >> john: it's authorizations right here in the continental united states. an increasing number of congress is considering limiting the president's ability to kill on foreign soils. is there anything where we question this? >> you just did a great segment on handguns. the american public, we have a culture of fear. we're terrified of everything. that's why we own so many handguns. that's why we're so willing to allow this president to trample on our freedom because we are so afraid of everything. the language we're going to hear tomorrow is this is a dangerous world. it's the same language we hear all of the obama apologizists talking about, it's the same thing with george bush. this is a dangerous world has been focused to death. they know it scares the american public. we're going to hear it again. this is a culture that will not react until they understand that it affects them. by 2020, john, we're going to have 30,000 drones flying overhead on our domestic soil. it's because of this new idea if it's a drone it's probably
qualities and they will inspire a guide as as we carry out the united states foreign policy in these challenging times ahead. as the son of a diplomat and a member of the united states senate, deeply engaged in american diplomacy, you bring to this office a unique perspective and knowledge of both politics and diplomacy. and of the importance of a professional career in foreign service as the backbone of american diplomacy in the department of state. despite our necessary focus on complex and counter-terrorism, our values, a vision, and interest calls for an overarching diplomatic engagement, recognized worldwide as a leadership role worthy of the united states on behalf of the greater good of mankind. it is truly a great pleasure for us to welcome you here and we trust that under your storage chip, all parts of the state department team will gain in stature and recognition and enhance our professional capabilities to be fully prepared to meet the challenges in these difficult times demand. as we commit our support and loyalty to you, mr. secretary, i also take this opportun
, the israeli oprah, he won his election not by doing the traditional pushes for foreign policy reform that one usually does in israel. he really won on domestic issues like lowering taxes and affordable housing and all that kind of stuff. an interesting thing to watch. i think the israel trip for the president accomplishes a couple of things. one, the announcement boosts the chuck hagel nomination. it's saying i'm going there. i know i didn't make it to israel in my first four years of office, but i'm going. if you are reading into this nomination, don't. it rubber stamps john kerry as secretary of state. john kerry wants to make the israeli and little east process a big part of his agenda. obama's way of saying i'm taking that message and just nominated this guy and i am taking john kerry with me in spirit. for us in terms of policy, it probably has less to do with israel and the palestinians and more to do on our end with syria, egypt, iran and seeing what we can flush out in terms of three different theaters. there is a lot on. agenda and does a lot of things. >> my read on the rational beh
season for arming the rebels in syria. more than 60,000 people have died, but that others on the foreign policy team pushed back, and the president made a decision not to. >> yeah. let me just say on this one i may be inclined toward the president. i'm not certain who those -- who would get those weapons. i don't want to fwet into too much detail. i'm also on the intelligence committee, but i'm -- i am not certain that those weapons wouldn't fall into the wrong hands, and that's a real problem we've had in syria. maybe more should be done earlier on to get better control of the rebels, but now to me there's too many unsavory pro-islamist elements among those rebels, so i am not certain that they should be given weapons. that's a tough call, and i'm not close enough to it on the ground, but from what i do know, i'm very leary about giving any weapons because they could end up in the hands of islamists. >> congressman peter king, it's great to have your perspective, and thank you and good luck in the storm for you and your constitch wednesday. thank you for being with us today. >> thank yo
. they have huge questions or senator hagel and his positions on how he would handle foreign policy, particularly with opposing sanctions on iran and north korea and israel. with that said, it was the secretary of defense secretary of, they did not do enough. so i think that there's these questions that need to be answered. as we know, it's been fox news covering this issue, ignored by the mainstream media. this is a moment in time we've loved an -- lost and embassador and several americans. >> one phone call, 5:00. >> one phone call. >> the white house would say the president was briefed by advisors. you served the president, george w. bush. >> that's right. when dealing with an attack, when american lives are in harm's way, we know that becomes quicklily a high priority for the president. if we know -- we know there's an attack going under way. >> what should he have done? >> i really think you have to step aside from being so focused on the election at that moment in time and make this one of your top priorities. >> should he have been back in the oval office behind the desk? >>
on foreign policy. when his father ron paul ran for president he got in trouble with a lot of republicans because his foreign policy was anti-war and isolationist which a lot of republicans didn't like. rand paul is departing from that, trying to make himself more acceptable, i think, to mainstream republicans. >> so you think we'll have another paul on the ballot in 2016. is rand paul remotely electable, nia-malika henderson? >> i'm not really sure. >> nationally. >> if you look at what happens, the republicans as much as we can talk about how they have moved to the right, the last candidates that have come out of these primaries have been moderates. you think about mitt romney, john mccain. is there going to be a third party, the tea party that breaks away from the gop. we'll have to wait and see. >> thanks to both of you. good to see you on this sunday. >> thank you. >> just ahead, top of the hour. the big dig has a new meaning in boston. digging out from more than three feet of snow, but it won't be in time for school tomorrow. good news force kids. bad news for parent. plus, californ
, had choice words for the president's foreign policy team. i'm not sure i agree with that. in "the new york times," a great must-read, quietly killing a consumer watchdog. it's how the republicans are just doing everything they can not to have the consumer financial protection bureau that was created by elizabeth warren under president obama actually function because it would keep them, quite frankly, from being able to get their money from all their donors on wall street. and they do not want to lose the people who helped them out. so they want to make sure that the consumer suffers so that they can gain politically. it's a good one. take a look at it. coming up -- >> we're also going to talk about nancy pelosi saying we don't have a spending problem, and the problem with medicare is not medicare. we've got a lot to talk about straight ahead. >> gail collins of "the new york times" joins us straight ahead. >> she's got a great column. >> i love it. you're watching "morning joe" brewed by starbucks. humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely,
? >> what will he not talk about? >> well, they think that there will not be much talk about foreign policy. you threw me a curve there, maureen. that was good. i think the fact is that they feel that they have a good policy, he's not going to talk about the stories that you just ran about chuck hagel and about brennan at cia, and he is not going to talk about benghazi. he is going to say that the fate of the owe that the state of the union is strong, and he is going to point to his accomplishments. he feels very confident. based on the election results, he is going to do everything he can to make himself and the democratic party look good. >> perhaps, speaking to the state of the republican party, florida senator marco rubio, whose national profile is certainly being elevated, he is giving the republican response, not just in english but in spanish. what ask that say to you? >> that's the wave of the future. obviously they read the election figures. 71% of the voters who were hispanic voted democratic. they realize they're in electoral doomsday if they can't get into that con stitt you the
the weapons. >> you delivered a major foreign policy today at the heritage foundation. well thought out speech on national security issues. why now? why did you decide to do it? because you knew that it was going to jump-start the speculation you want to establish foreign policy credentials for a possible run in 2016. >> you know, i just joined the foreign relations committee. i wanted to spell out what my mission is for the foreign policy. it's a unique position and one that needs to be expressed. we often have two polar extremes and really just one, for the most part, that we're everywhere you will a of the time. the other extreme is that it would be nowhere any of the time and that would be isolationism. there's a realistic approach somewhere in the middle and it would involve containment. i talked a lot about george kennan who may be the most famous diplomats, thought to be one of the chief architects of containment and i think there's some of ththat may apply to rad islam. it's an thet cal to freedom and has to be opposed at various parts around the world but i don't think the standard ap
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 149 (some duplicates have been removed)